THE Trump effect, it seems, has begun to take root in the UK Government. The US president-elect built his entire campaign for the White House on racism, sexism, threats of violence and hatred of others. And just in case these messages weren’t getting through to the electorate he simply told lies, distorted reality and created delusions. Thus the unemployment rate went up in his imagination from around five per cent (the real figure) to more than 40 per cent and he later claimed to have seen thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001.
I’ll give Theresa May the benefit of the doubt at this stage and absolve yesterday’s Brexit speech from conveying falsehoods. Although she did sail close to the wind by talking about the “vast” contributions Britain makes to the EU without mentioning the huge contributions the EU makes to Britain in development projects in those areas that a reactionary and hard-right government would rarely choose to entertain. Nor did it take account of the 3.1 million UK jobs linked to our exports to the EU.
Much of the rest of her speech though, was sheer self-delusion. As soon as she began to insist that the remaining 27 countries of the EU must allow the UK “the freest possible trade” with them you knew where this one was going. In the seven months that have elapsed since England and Wales voted to leave the EU not a single major European premier has even hinted that Britain would be allowed to remain in the free market without allowing free movement of people.
May’s assertion that the UK “cannot possibly” remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean “not leaving the EU at all” will come back to haunt her. The remaining EU leaders may choose to form the view that “the freest possible trade” as Ms May put it will be like “not leaving the EU at all”.
Yesterday’s speech, like every one made by those who favoured leaving the EU, may not have contained lies but it was dishonest in the extreme. It was coated in a thin film of optimism that took no account of the reality of the situation. There was no mention by her of how long it can take to conclude an individual trade deal, let alone the 27 with the remaining EU states and the 60 that the EU negotiated on very favourable terms with non-EU countries.
Nor was there any mention of how much more difficult it will be to reach a favourable agreement to trade in the big, lucrative EU markets when you’re on your own and not part of a massive trading block.
She claimed that it was not her intention to “undermine” the EU or the single market before warning against a “punitive” reaction to Brexit. Then came the most delusional quote of her speech when she said that such an approach by the remaining 27 EU states would bring “calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe and it would not be the act of a friend”. That’s a bit like stookying your best pal for no apparent reason and then getting upset when he doesn’t invite you to his birthday party.
At least May was honest enough about immigration as she talked about controlling the number of people coming to Britain from the EU. From the mouth of a Tory that translates as follows: “We won’t have dodgy eastern European types coming here willy-nilly.” It paid no heed to the fact that the dodgy eastern Europeans of the Tories’ fevered imaginations keep our service sector going and pay more in net contributions to our economy than they take out.
But then, let’s face it: this was never really about trade agreements or the controlling behaviour of the EU institutions. This was always going to be about fear and loathing of foreigners and those coming from those countries that too many in the UK consider beneath us. If the Leave side weren’t quite racist they were pandering to a racist agenda set by UKIP, Britain First and the BNP.
On June 24, the day after the vote to leave the EU, I visited Hartlepool to seek reaction in a solid Labour and working class town which had voted 70-30 to leave the EU. Each of the dozen or so people I chatted to – both men and women – cited immigration as the main reason for desiring to leave Europe. “There’s just too many of them,” I was told several times. There was no mention of successive Tory and Labour administrations who had connived at destroying the shipbuilding, fishing and car manufacturing up and down the north-east coast from Hartlepool to Grimsby.
They had been preyed upon by rich chancers like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson who were simply using their fear and ignorance to further their ambitions in the Tory Party. Gove and Johnson and Duncan Smith and Davis and those who pay £100,000 a time to sup with them at the party conference will always be insulated against the consequences of their actions. In places like Hartlepool, though, and Sunderland they will wait in vain for the hospitals they were promised and the jobs that would come with them.
European money helped fund many much-needed buildings and jobs in England’s north-east. Do they really think that a hard-right government of chisellers like these will make communities in those areas a priority?
And so, in the week when the Tories have swapped the protection and security of the EU for a unspecified trade deal with an unhinged tyrant in the White House, what is the response from the Scottish Government? Nicola Sturgeon knew this day was coming despite all that posturing about parking independence in exchange for a soft Brexit.
The First Minister was quickly out the blocks following the vote on June 23. Yesterday she seemed unprepared. She can’t keep talking about independence in degrees of likelihood now that it has become clear what the apocalypse looks like if we stay in the UK. Perhaps she will let us know in her shiny new newspaper column for the Daily Record next week.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel